pull down to refresh

26 sats \ 12 replies \ @ek 8 Dec \ parent \ on: Bitcoin.org Owner Cobra Warns on Upcoming Bitcoin Soft Fork in 2025 bitcoin
How would you compare the universally recognized benefits of SegWit
The benefits of SegWit weren’t universally recognized at the time, that’s why BCH exists. Hindsight is 20/20.
to proposal like BIP119, which is primarily tailored to niche interests and lacks the same consensus on its necessity?
It lacks consensus currently, yes, but I don’t think scaling self-custody is a niche interest. Sounds like an oxymoron but I think most people overestimate what could go wrong if we add covenants vs what could go wrong if we don’t. When too much bitcoins is held at custodians it might be too late to undo.
Lightning payments are already mostly done via custodians1 and this problem is slowly creeping up to layer 1.
Isn’t there a substantive difference between solutions addressing core infrastructural challenges
What was the core infrastructural challenge of SegWit? Is it not very similar to why covenants are suggested?

Footnotes

  1. see nostr and Primal with their KYC wallet integration ↩
write
preview
11 sats \ 11 replies \ @aliceandthewonderland OP 8 Dec
While BCH’s existence may show that not everyone agreed with SegWit, it doesn’t deny the fact that SegWit was indeed addressing root technical issues like transaction malleability, block capacity, that were broadly recognized. BIP119’s aims may sound beneficial, but it’s not clear they’re solving a similarly core problem rather than introducing new complexity, without widespread agreement on its necessity.
reply
0 sats \ 10 replies \ @ek 8 Dec
SegWit was about scaling bitcoin while preserving self-custody. Covenants are about scaling bitcoin while preserving self-custody.
You need to look at the bigger picture and not get lost in the details.
reply
41 sats \ 7 replies \ @random_ 8 Dec
SegWit was about addressing transaction malleability.
reply
0 sats \ 6 replies \ @ek 8 Dec
To enable lightning and lightning is about scaling bitcoin while preserving self-custody
reply
30 sats \ 5 replies \ @random_ 8 Dec
Transaction malleability is a vulnerability all on its own.
No one was framing it around Lightning.
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @ek 8 Dec
No one was framing it around Lightning.
You sure?
After the successful activations of OP_CLTV and OP_CSV, SegWit was the last protocol change needed to make the Lightning Network safe to deploy on the Bitcoin network.
It’s even mentioned in BIP 141 itself:
Unconfirmed transaction dependency chain is a fundamental building block of more sophisticated payment networks, such as duplex micropayment channel and the Lightning Network, which have the potential to greatly improve the scalability and efficiency of the Bitcoin system.
reply
10 sats \ 3 replies \ @random_ 8 Dec
What’s the vulnerability on layer 1 if your txid changes but you still get paid?
Who says you still get paid?
OPs premise:
I believe that BIPs should only be implemented to address critical vulnerabilities; otherwise, they are unnecessary.
In your rebuttal you mention SegWit and that it was introduced for scalability.
I am telling you your rebuttal is wrong because SegWit was primarily meant to address transaction malleability.
Lightning was an afterthought. And if Lightning did not exist, the BIP would have still addressed a critical vulnerability.
Just look at this
The very first reason says "Nonintentional malleability becomes impossible." NOT "makes lightning possible". See what I mean?
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @ek 8 Dec
Who says you still get paid?
Everyone who withdrew still got paid, the exchange only lost track of withdrawals because the txid changed so you could withdraw more than you had.
I am telling you your rebuttal is wrong because SegWit was primarily meant to address transaction malleability.
SegWit was a if not the most important part of the blocksize wars and proposed as an alternative to scaling on layer 1. As I see it, that’s literally framing SegWit around lightning.
The very first reason says "Nonintentional malleability becomes impossible." NOT "makes lightning possible".
The very first reason literally includes "makes lightning possible" as a bullet point
view replies
26 sats \ 1 reply \ @aliceandthewonderland OP 8 Dec
Ok, I get that BIP119 can help secure self-custody in the long run.
But if we go down this route, isn’t there a risk of ending up with a similar split as the block size wars, where some nodes embrace the soft fork while others refuse, potentially leading to another contentious chain split?
reply
26 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 8 Dec
There is. I’m arguing for covenants, but I’m not arguing for covenants right now via UASF.
where some nodes embrace the soft fork while others refuse, potentially leading to another contentious chain split?
Not if enough miners agree (MASF like Taproot), only if there is a UASF like SegWit which is probably what you mean.
reply